Ancient History Sourcebook: Aristotle: The Polis, from Politics
Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC) was a Greek philosopher, a student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great.
He wrote on many subjects, including physics, metaphysics, poetry, theater, music, logic, rhetoric, politics,
government, ethics, biology, and zoology. Together with Plato and Socrates (Plato's teacher), Aristotle is one
of the most important founding figures in Western philosophy. He was the first to create a comprehensive
system of Western philosophy, encompassing morality and aesthetics, logic and science, politics and
metaphysics.
Aristotle's Politics is a work of political philosophy. In the end of the “Nicomachean Ethics” (the name
normally given to the most well-known work by Aristotle on ethics. It plays a prominent role in defining
Aristotelian ethics, and is widely considered one of the most important historical philosophical works, having
for example a very important impact upon European Medieval Philosophy, and hence indirectly upon Modern
Philosophy) declared that the inquiry into ethics necessarily follows into politics, and the two works are
frequently considered to be parts of a larger treatise, or perhaps connected lectures, dealing with the
"philosophy of human affairs." The title of the Politics literally means "the things concerning the polis."
******************************************************************************
[Democracy as the best form of government]
We have now to inquire what is the best constitution for most states, and the best life for
most men, neither assuming a standard of virtue which is above ordinary persons, nor an
education which is exceptionally favored by nature and circumstances, nor yet an ideal state
which is an aspiration only, but having regard to the life in which the majority are able to share,
and to the form of government which states in general can attain. As to those aristocracies, as
they are called, of which we were just now speaking, they either lie beyond the possibilities of
the greater number of states, or they approximate to the so-called constitutional government, and
therefore need no separate discussion. And in fact the conclusion at which we arrive respecting
all these forms rests upon the same grounds. For if what was said in the Ethics is true, that the
happy life is the life according to virtue lived without impediment, and that virtue is a mean, then
the life which is in a mean, and in a mean attainable by every one, must be the best. And the
same the same principles of virtue and vice are characteristic of cities and of constitutions; for
the constitution is in a figure the life of the city.
Now in all states there are three elements: one class is very rich, another very poor, and a
third in a mean. It is admitted that moderation and the mean are best, and therefore it will clearly
be best to possess the gifts of fortune in moderation; for in that condition of life men are most
ready to follow rational principle. But he who greatly excels in beauty, strength, birth, or wealth,
or on the other hand who is very poor, or very weak, or very much disgraced, finds it difficult to
follow rational principle. Of these two the one sort grow into violent and great criminals, the
others into rogues and petty rascals. And two sorts of offenses correspond to them, the one
committed from violence, the other from roguery. Again, the middle class is least likely to shrink
from rule, or to be over-ambitious for it; both of which are injuries to the state. Again, those who
have too much of the goods of fortune, strength, wealth, friends, and the like, are neither willing
nor able to submit to authority. The evil begins at home; for when they are boys, by reason of the
luxury in which they are brought up, they never learn, even at school, the habit of obedience. On
the other hand, the very poor, who are in the opposite extreme, are too degraded. So that the one
class cannot obey, and can only rule despotically; the other knows not how to command and
must be ruled like slaves. Thus arises a city, not of freemen, but of masters and slaves, the one
despising, the other envying; and nothing can be more fatal to friendship and good fellowship in
states than this: for good fellowship springs from friendship; when men are at enmity with one
another, they would rather not even share the same path. But a city ought to be composed, as far
as possible, of equals and similars; and these are generally the middle classes. Wherefore the city
which is composed of middle-class citizens is necessarily best constituted in respect of the
elements of which we say the fabric of the state naturally consists. And this is the class of
citizens which is most secure in a state, for they do not, like the poor, covet their neighbors'
goods; nor do others covet theirs, as the poor covet the goods of the rich; and as they neither plot
against others, nor are themselves plotted against, they pass through life safely. Wisely then did
Phocylides pray- 'Many things are best in the mean; I desire to be of a middle condition in my
city.'
Thus it is manifest that the best political community is formed by citizens of the middle class,
and that those states are likely to be well-administered in which the middle class is large, and
stronger if possible than both the other classes, or at any rate than either singly; for the addition
of the middle class turns the scale, and prevents either of the extremes from being dominant.
Great then is the good fortune of a state in which the citizens have a moderate and sufficient
property; for where some possess much, and the others nothing, there may arise an extreme
democracy, or a pure oligarchy; or a tyranny may grow out of either extreme--either out of the
most rampant democracy, or out of an oligarchy; but it is not so likely to arise out of the middle
constitutions and those akin to them. I will explain the reason of this hereafter, when I speak of
the revolutions of states. The mean condition of states is clearly best, for no other is free from
faction; and where the middle class is large, there are least likely to be factions and dissensions.
For a similar reason large states are less liable to faction than small ones, because in them the
middle class is large; whereas in small states it is easy to divide all the citizens into two classes
who are either rich or poor, and to leave nothing in the middle. And democracies are safer and
more permanent than oligarchies, because they have a middle class which is more numerous and
has a greater share in the government; for when there is no middle class, and the poor greatly
exceed in number, troubles arise, and the state soon comes to an end. A proof of the superiority
of the middle dass is that the best legislators have been of a middle condition; for example,
Solon, as his own verses testify; and Lycurgus, for he was not a king; and Charondas, and almost
all legislators.
These considerations will help us to understand why most governments are either
democratical or oligarchical. The reason is that the middle class is seldom numerous in them, and
whichever party, whether the rich or the common people, transgresses the mean and
predominates, draws the constitution its own way, and thus arises either oligarchy or democracy.
There is another reason--the poor and the rich quarrel with one another, and whichever side gets
the better, instead of establishing a just or popular government, regards political supremacy as
the prize of victory, and the one party sets up a democracy and the other an oligarchy. Further,
both the parties which had the supremacy in Hellas looked only to the interest of their own form
of government, and established in states, the one, democracies, and the other, oligarchies; they
thought of their own advantage, of the public not at all. For these reasons the middle form of
government has rarely, if ever, existed, and among a very few only. One man alone of all who
ever ruled in Hellas was induced to give this middle constitution to states. But it has now become
a habit among the citizens of states, not even to care about equality; all men are seeking for
dominion, or, if conquered, are willing to submit.
What then is the best form of government, and what makes it the best, is evident; and of other
constitutions, since we say that there are many kinds of democracy and many of oligarchy, it is
not difficult to see which has the first and which the second or any other place in the order of
excellence, now that we have determined which is the best. For that which is nearest to the best
must of necessity be better, and that which is furthest from it worse, if we are judging absolutely
and not relatively to given conditions: I say 'relatively to given conditions,' since a particular
government may be preferable, but another form may be better for some people.
Source: Aristotle. Politics.
This text is part of the Internet Ancient History Sourcebook. The Sourcebook is a collection of
public domain and copy-permitted texts related to medieval and Byzantine history.
Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright. Permission
is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal
use. No representation is made about texts which are linked off-site, although in most cases these
are also public domain. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No permission is
granted for commercial use.